| Title |
What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biodiversity and Conservation, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10531-016-1133-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynn V. Dicks, Hugh L. Wright, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, James Hutchison, Caitlin G. McCormack, Barbara Livoreil, Klaus Peter Zulka, William J. Sutherland |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 25% |
| United States | 3 | 11% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 64% |
| Scientists | 9 | 32% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Réunion | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 41% |
| Environmental Science | 21 | 22% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,056,806
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Biodiversity and Conservation
#297
of 2,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,809
of 344,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biodiversity and Conservation
#9
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.